Indian-origin CEO spent ₹3.5 crore on girlfriend, then sued her to get it back after break-up

An Indian-origin chief executive in Singapore has lost a high-profile civil case after suing his former girlfriend to recover about ₹3.5 crore he spent on her during their relationship, the Straits Times reported on Thursday.

The Singapore High Court ruled that the money and luxury gifts were given voluntarily, not as loans, and dismissed the claim, the report said.

Chander Agarwal, CEO and Managing Director of India-listed logistics firm TCI Express, filed the suit against his ex-girlfriend, Felicia Lee, after they broke up in December 2023.

Agarwal sought to recover S$468,090 (around ₹3.5 crore), arguing the amounts were interest-free loans that Lee was obliged to repay.

ALSO READ: Tinder Match, ₹52 lakh gone! How a Haryana judge was duped; honey trap suspected

What did he spend on?

Accoridng to the report, court documents that Agarwal paid for Lee's expenses, including S$206,000 (₹1.38 crore) in credit card bills, S$129,000 (₹86.4 lakh) on overseas travel, S$15,775 (₹10.6 lakh) in life insurance premiums, S$17,000 (₹11.4 lakh) for feng shui consultation, and S$30,000 (₹20.1 lakh) for a Stanford-NUS executive programme.

An alleged S$50,000 (₹33.5 lakh) loan was also cited but was not proved. Luxury shopping, including Hermes, Dior, Prada and Louis Vuitton, formed part of the overall S$468,090 (₹3.5 crore) expenses.

Court’s reasoning: gifts, not loans

In a judgement delivered on September 9, Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin held that most of the disputed payments were gifts made “willingly” in the context of a romantic relationship, not legally enforceable loans. The judge noted the absence of clear loan agreements or repayment terms and said the evidence supported Lee’s position that the transfers were motivated by love and affection.

DO CHECKOUT: She said wedding soon: Tollywood actress took Rs 9.35 crore, flat from NRI techie - then backed out

The Singapore HC dismissed Agarwal’s claim in full and ordered him to pay Lee’s legal costs. As a result, Agarwal cannot recover the S$468,090 he sought. The ruling underscores Singapore courts’ strict approach to distinguishing gifts from loans, especially where large sums change hands without written terms.